On a basic level why aren't loops ##\equiv## strings?

[billtodd]

As far as I can tell (if we look at pictures, without equations), a loop can be considered as a 1-dimensional closed string; and an open 1-dim string can be considered as a loop that we cut one point on its boundary?

So basically the fundamental building block is the same whether you call it loop or string?


I prefer points though...

Obviously there's also the background dependency and independency that conflicts between both of them; But if one were to unite between the two theories, I guess one should find a someway to complement between them.
How to do it exactly is yet beyond me as well, if it's even possible.

 

[ohwilleke]

Loop quantum gravity is about discrete units of space-time.

In string theory, strings are particles that existing within a 10-11 dimensional space-time that is continuous, rather than discrete, and often represented by branes or manifolds.

 

[billtodd]

Loop quantum gravity is about discrete units of space-time.

In string theory, strings are particles that existing within a 10-11 dimensional space-time that is continuous, rather than discrete, and often represented by branes or manifolds.

Isn't it the other way around? I.e. particles are strings. I assume there are strings that are not necessarily particles. There's also this theory called string field theory, which I know nothing about it.

 

[Demystifier]

a loop can be considered as a 1-dimensional closed string

No it cannot, they are described by totally different equations.
That's like saying that electron can be considered as a photon, because both are zero-dimensional.

 

[PeterDonis]

The OP question is sufficiently answered (particularly in view of the kind of reference given). Thread closed.